Fethullah Gülen and Atheist-Terrorist Comparison
Those who would like to make a point by taking a sentence from a 10-day interview out of its context have to understand that they could go no further with ideological status-quo approaches.
Anyway, I believe that it would be beneficial to explain the said sentence, in the name of Haqq [Absolute Truth; an attribute of Allah].
First, let's give the meaning of the Verse about the argued issue. "Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. Our messengers went to them with clear proofs and revelations, but most of them, after all this, are still transgressing." (5/32)
The Koran introduces the truth, realized by the modern world only recently, 15 centuries ago and it is regardless of any discrimination of religion, language, ethnicity or race. This is the first one.
Secondly, this Verse has become a source for interpreters and scholars of Islamic Jurisprudence on the issue of killing a man without any reason.
Some have interpreted it to mean that one who killed someone in vain would be punished; however, he could still enter heaven in the Afterlife. Some have interpreted it, for example Ibn Abbas, that despite the worldly punishment that would be visited upon the transgressor, he would also enter hell in the Afterlife.
Within this context, Hodja Efendi's statement using the name of Abbas as an example has to be appraised as an example of bravery in terms of the conditions of our day.
Why? Because today Muslims are a mass that has been killed, tyrannized, had their properties off their hands, and killed in many terrorist attacks called "state terror".
Apart from the other issues, I used dying, killing, being killed and plundering. Part of scholars who have been taken by the winds of grudge, rage and, hatred over the years, permit suicide attacks.
That is, if Hodja Efendi's exhibition of a stance contrary to the understanding and judgment of those Islamic countries subjected to this situation, and his putting forth of a valuable view and supporting it is not a bravery, then what is it?
As in the article of Ekrem Dumanli, isn't another example of this bravery his [Gülen's] being the first among Islamic scholars to be obviously and clearly opposed to Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
As for the key point of the debate, namely equating the unbeliever and atheist to terrorists, an unbeliever with its simplest meaning in Islamic literature is one who refuses existence of Allah.
An atheist, according to the dictionary, is a man who accepts the doctrine that defends absence of Allah.
Moreover, encyclopedias emphasize that atheism should not be confused with agnosticism, which emerged later on and does not refuse the presence of God.
When we consider the issue from this perspective, unbelievers and atheists converge at a common point in the context that they refuse the existence of Allah.
Therefore, Hodja Efendi's comparison that holds the unbeliever/atheist equivalent to a terrorist is not because of their qualifications but because of where they will meet in the Afterlife.
Is it possible to explain the sentence, "Those who kill a person will suffer the same fate as unbeliever," in any other way? As a matter of fact, according to Islamic belief, even he or she who is Muslim would be in hell according to the interpretation of the group led by Abbas. Hodja Efendi's statements are nothing but the composition of the reality of this comment.
Then, why are there such objections to Hodja Efendi's approach? In the opposition-that first began with Ahmet Inam according to Milliyet- Inam objected to the words of Hodja Efendi "What an Atheist means is one who does not accept God, and that is equivalent to one who kills a person." Inam says in his objection, "Atheist means a person who does not have a rooted religion."
It does not mean that such a man does not have any belief or any value. There are many people in the history who have high values.
"This is correct; however, there is no one who refuses this in the words of Hodja Efendi; moreover, I might say, giving following verses:
"Tell those who believed to forgive those who do not expect the days of God. He will fully pay everyone for whatever they have earned." (45/14), and "God does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may befriend them and be equitable towards them. God loves the equitable." (60/8)
Isn't Hodja Efendi the person who carries the theory that good relations might be experienced with those people who do not feel any hostility against Muslims and it is required to establish good relations with those in practice?
It means that there are no accusations against atheists who have high values in the words of Hodja Efendi.
When coming to the answer of the "why" question; even if the possibility is not announced clearly, there is an opposition against hell as being the eternal place for the unbelievers-terrorist comparison.
It is obvious when talking about the eternal place for the unbeliever, that it is not possible for anybody including the Prophet Mohammed to state a declaration against God's will and also show more compassion than Allah.[CPH1] However, God may or may not forgive those unbelievers, who have high values, with his kindness.
This is the thing that knows only He.
Then, if Koran puts sirq [not believing Allah] into the category of sins that God would not forgive and says those who commit this sin will enter hell, then why is it wrong to group these people in with those who kill innocents, who according to one interpretation also go to hell?
Within this context, maybe Mr. Ergin would have found a more suitable, modern interpretation from Hodja Efendi to be one where that says unbelievers go to paradise one hundred percent. Is that so?
As it can be seen, there is no reason for a person to rush to judgment and attempt to create a stir over the words, "Those who are not with us are unbeliever." On the contrary, within the dialogue process, there is cooperation between those people who identify themselves as atheists.
As a result, I wish Mr. Ergin had been able to control his reactions so that they could have been considered as an addition to the dialogue instead of something that ended up sinking his own ship. This cannot be realized now, but we hope it will occur from now on. As we said, "renewal is inevitable".
ZAMAN
- Created on .